User:HJ Mitchell/ACE2013

Yes, it's that time of year again! Wikipedia's Supreme Court-cum-governing body is holding its elections. We have an interesting mix of sitting arbs, bitter cynics, and grim pragmatists in the running this year. But fear not, you have the pleasure of reading my thoughts on the candidates and (for good measure) ArbCom in general. Of course, these are just my opinions. Dissent (or assent!) is welcome on the talk page, and you should take what I have to say with a pinch of salt. Above all, please form your own opinion—don't just blindly follow mine or anyone else's!

You can skip the preamble and go straight to if yo real want, but the preamble might give you an insight into my thinking.

Preamble
I'm generally a cynic, especially when it comes to ArbCom. If I had my way, there wouldn't be an ArbCom. What we'd replace it with, I don't know; does it really need replacing? Plenty of projects manage without one. The trouble with ArbCom is that so little of what it does has anything to do with dispute resolution. It has absorbed all sorts of functions that only really have one thing in common: that somebody somewhere has decided that they need to be kept secret. Over the years, ArbCom has either had these responsibilities dumped on it, has taken them on because there's no other way they would be fulfilled, or has just decreed itself to have such responsibilities. The trouble with all of this is that it has turned ArbCom into a secret committee that has effectively become Wikipedia's governing body (I offer no opinion on whether having a governing body is a bad thing, I merely suggest that governance and dispute resolution are very different functions requiring different skills). Its decisions are made in secret, even when there's no need for secrecy, and the reason it's secret is secret because it's a secret. ArbCom's raison d'etre has taken a back seat. If we are to have an Arbitration Committee, we need it to focus on resolving our most intractable disputes. To do this, it needs to shed most of its governance responsibilities: the BASC needs to be an independent body: appealing a ban to a subcommittee of the same body that banned you is just absurd, and hearing appeals of community bans has little to do with ArbCom's core function; it needs to shed responsibility for appointing functionaries (who, by the way, are elected on other projects, not appointed by fiat) and overseeing their actions, both of which are governance functions. We don't have to rely entirely on the Meta-based procedures if we don't want to, but these functions shouldn't rest with a dispute-resolution body.

To call it dispute resolution is a misnomer; arbitration in this context is not about getting everyone to agree—it's about reducing the dispute to a level where it doesn't interfere with the functioning of the encyclopaedia, and where discussion can take place. Sometimes, the only way to achieve that is to remove one or several of the parties from the dispute, or even from the project altogether. This requires an incisiveness to see through bullshit and get to the bottom of a dispute, and decide how best to restore some sense of normality. But it also requires tact, diplomacy, and patience—haste or excessive zeal can do a lot of damage.

Thus, I will be voting for candidates I think possess these skills, and preferably have a generally quite relaxed, "down-to-Earth" attitude, and know the community well enough to understand what it is capable of handling itself and what is genuinely intractable.

Candidates

 * Support
 * I wonder if he's a little naive in writing a statement that focuses almost entirely on the dispute resolution aspect of ArbCom rather than all the other (at best) tangentially related functions that the committee has been saddled with (or has saddled itself with) over the years. I do, though, have a very high opinion of 28bytes. He has an eagerness to help that doesn't seem to have been diminished by increased exposure to the less glamorous areas of Wikipedia, and he's much less cynical than many of the other candidates, most of whom are standing out of grim determination or bitter scepticism. I'm not sure he knows what he's letting himself in for, which perhaps puts him at higher risk of burning out and thus becoming inactive or resigning before his term is completed (something that's a concern, given the number of resignations in recent years), but I think 28bytes can hack it and still retain his sanity.
 * I wonder if he's a little naive in writing a statement that focuses almost entirely on the dispute resolution aspect of ArbCom rather than all the other (at best) tangentially related functions that the committee has been saddled with (or has saddled itself with) over the years. I do, though, have a very high opinion of 28bytes. He has an eagerness to help that doesn't seem to have been diminished by increased exposure to the less glamorous areas of Wikipedia, and he's much less cynical than many of the other candidates, most of whom are standing out of grim determination or bitter scepticism. I'm not sure he knows what he's letting himself in for, which perhaps puts him at higher risk of burning out and thus becoming inactive or resigning before his term is completed (something that's a concern, given the number of resignations in recent years), but I think 28bytes can hack it and still retain his sanity.
 * Support
 * David Gerard's idea of a blanket oppose vote for incumbents standing for re-election is a tempting one, frankly. I have been amazed over the past two years (in particular) at the decisions that have come out of a committee formed of editors who are mostly sensible and respectable in their own right. I certainly have great respect for Anthony as an individual editor and admin, but I've been disappointed by his time on the committee. He was a candidate I thought would bring a fresh perspective to the committee, so I readily endorsed him in 2010, but he seems to have become just another man in a grey suit. Frankly, and it pains me to write this about somebody I respect, I get the impression he is far too concerned with bureaucracy and procedure rather than with getting to the bottom of an issue. I wouldn't vote for Anthony as zealously as I did in 2010, but if you can't find nine other candidates you could comfortably support, AGK probably won't make things significantly better, but I'd trust him not to make things worse. Given the passion with which NW endorses AGK, I'll likely support him, and hope that my harsher judgement is mistaken.
 * David Gerard's idea of a blanket oppose vote for incumbents standing for re-election is a tempting one, frankly. I have been amazed over the past two years (in particular) at the decisions that have come out of a committee formed of editors who are mostly sensible and respectable in their own right. I certainly have great respect for Anthony as an individual editor and admin, but I've been disappointed by his time on the committee. He was a candidate I thought would bring a fresh perspective to the committee, so I readily endorsed him in 2010, but he seems to have become just another man in a grey suit. Frankly, and it pains me to write this about somebody I respect, I get the impression he is far too concerned with bureaucracy and procedure rather than with getting to the bottom of an issue. I wouldn't vote for Anthony as zealously as I did in 2010, but if you can't find nine other candidates you could comfortably support, AGK probably won't make things significantly better, but I'd trust him not to make things worse. Given the passion with which NW endorses AGK, I'll likely support him, and hope that my harsher judgement is mistaken.


 * NB, in the light of feedback on the talk page, I have asked AGK a question, so my opinion might change.
 * I'm still not entirely convinced that AGK isn't excessively focused on ArbCom's internal business and other things of little relevance to the committee's core function, but we do need a mix of skill sets. More importantly, he recognises the need for ArbCom to devolve some of its responsibilities to other bodies so that it can focus on its core duties. Hopefully he'll make some progress there, and we can re-evaluate things in another two years.


 * Oppose
 * I could overlook the chequered history; most of it was a while ago, and everyone makes mistakes. But standing for election while currently subject to a topic ban raises an eyebrow at the very least. Granted, the threshold one has to cross to be sanctioned by the current ArbCom seems to be low and inconsistent, but I don't think it's so low that somebody would be sanctioned for no misconduct whatsoever. The statement lacks any clear indication of what he wants to do or what he would change, so it's hard to judge how he would vote on decisions. It is worth noting, though, that the statement is not built on acrimony or bitterness towards either ArbCom or his opponents in the Tea Party case—this clearly isn't an attempt to 'get his own back', and it's worthy of consideration as a legitimate candidacy. I just don't think I'll be supporting.
 * I could overlook the chequered history; most of it was a while ago, and everyone makes mistakes. But standing for election while currently subject to a topic ban raises an eyebrow at the very least. Granted, the threshold one has to cross to be sanctioned by the current ArbCom seems to be low and inconsistent, but I don't think it's so low that somebody would be sanctioned for no misconduct whatsoever. The statement lacks any clear indication of what he wants to do or what he would change, so it's hard to judge how he would vote on decisions. It is worth noting, though, that the statement is not built on acrimony or bitterness towards either ArbCom or his opponents in the Tea Party case—this clearly isn't an attempt to 'get his own back', and it's worthy of consideration as a legitimate candidacy. I just don't think I'll be supporting.


 * Support
 * I had the great pleasure of meeting Beeblebrox at Wikimania 2012. He's clearly an intelligent guy, and he can deal with toxic and unpleasant situations while retaining his sense of humour, which is an admirable quality. I think it's fair to say that he's earnt himself a reputation as a fairly no-nonsense admin, but not one who is over-zealous or cavalier in his approach. The perspective of a functionary who has worked closely with ArbCom and has formed a low opinion of the committee is an interesting one, and I think Beeblebrox would be a breath of fresh air to a dusty and stale committee.
 * I had the great pleasure of meeting Beeblebrox at Wikimania 2012. He's clearly an intelligent guy, and he can deal with toxic and unpleasant situations while retaining his sense of humour, which is an admirable quality. I think it's fair to say that he's earnt himself a reputation as a fairly no-nonsense admin, but not one who is over-zealous or cavalier in his approach. The perspective of a functionary who has worked closely with ArbCom and has formed a low opinion of the committee is an interesting one, and I think Beeblebrox would be a breath of fresh air to a dusty and stale committee.


 * Oppose
 * I'll probably oppose BW, quite frankly, but I haven't completely made up my mind. His statement is certainly accurate—he takes the direct approach and he doesn't tolerate bollocks. He doesn't take prisoners either. And that's not an inherently bad thing. Always... Some of the disputes that end up at ArbCom need a firm hand, and need the major parties to be removed from the topic area or even the project, and might actually benefit from BWilkins' approach. This is certainly the approach that needs to be taken with some of the more toxic disputes, where anything else would be kicking the can down the road (or rather passing the buck to the admins at AE). But there are cases that require more finesse and tact, and a more refined approach. I don't see anything that suggests that BW could handle those...
 * I'll probably oppose BW, quite frankly, but I haven't completely made up my mind. His statement is certainly accurate—he takes the direct approach and he doesn't tolerate bollocks. He doesn't take prisoners either. And that's not an inherently bad thing. Always... Some of the disputes that end up at ArbCom need a firm hand, and need the major parties to be removed from the topic area or even the project, and might actually benefit from BWilkins' approach. This is certainly the approach that needs to be taken with some of the more toxic disputes, where anything else would be kicking the can down the road (or rather passing the buck to the admins at AE). But there are cases that require more finesse and tact, and a more refined approach. I don't see anything that suggests that BW could handle those...


 * Undecided; neutral, possibly oppose
 * Now there's an interesting prospect! David paints a bleak picture of the current ArbCom, even by the standards of a cynic like me, but he's not completely wrong. Through a series of poor and downright churlish decisions, the Arbitration Committee has earnt the contempt of significant parts of the community. There is a lot of work to do to rehabilitate ArbCom to the extent that the community and the wider movement has confidence in it. Under David, I suspect things would either get a lot better or a lot worse. I'm tempted to support in the hope that he can bring about the change we need, but I wonder if he's as in-touch with the community as he thinks. He has become a part of the politics of the wider movement since his first term on ArbCom, and the concerns of the Foundation and of chapters overlap with, but are not necessarily the same as, those of the English Wikipedia. There are also concerns of axe-grinding, which others raise, and I'm just not sure that David isn't too radical.
 * Now there's an interesting prospect! David paints a bleak picture of the current ArbCom, even by the standards of a cynic like me, but he's not completely wrong. Through a series of poor and downright churlish decisions, the Arbitration Committee has earnt the contempt of significant parts of the community. There is a lot of work to do to rehabilitate ArbCom to the extent that the community and the wider movement has confidence in it. Under David, I suspect things would either get a lot better or a lot worse. I'm tempted to support in the hope that he can bring about the change we need, but I wonder if he's as in-touch with the community as he thinks. He has become a part of the politics of the wider movement since his first term on ArbCom, and the concerns of the Foundation and of chapters overlap with, but are not necessarily the same as, those of the English Wikipedia. There are also concerns of axe-grinding, which others raise, and I'm just not sure that David isn't too radical.


 * Support
 * Hmm. For a lesser candidate, "I promise not to block anyone on ArbCom while I'm on it" might be a reason to oppose! Floquenbeam, though, is another intelligent, articulate candidate, and his statement is far too modest. But then the humble, quiet types have been known to do well on ArbCom, and make a change from some of the larger personalities. Floq is another of the no-nonsense types who prefers the direct approach to beating around the bush. However, unlike some of the other candidates, he is able to judge when tact and diplomacy are likely to produce a better outcome than a churlish hard-line approach. What I anticipate you'll see from Floquenbeam is considered, rational decision-making outside the confines of procedure for its own sake.
 * Hmm. For a lesser candidate, "I promise not to block anyone on ArbCom while I'm on it" might be a reason to oppose! Floquenbeam, though, is another intelligent, articulate candidate, and his statement is far too modest. But then the humble, quiet types have been known to do well on ArbCom, and make a change from some of the larger personalities. Floq is another of the no-nonsense types who prefers the direct approach to beating around the bush. However, unlike some of the other candidates, he is able to judge when tact and diplomacy are likely to produce a better outcome than a churlish hard-line approach. What I anticipate you'll see from Floquenbeam is considered, rational decision-making outside the confines of procedure for its own sake.


 * Neutral
 * Okay, you've made some very respectable contributions and you've told us that you think there's a problem with civility. Personally, I think people get too het up about such things, and the encyclopaedia is what happens while some people are busy reporting each other to noticeboards over the most minor of perceived insults. Sure, we should all try to get along with each other, and there's certainly no need for gratuitous insults, but sometimes rigorous debate and even dispute makes the encyclopaedia better... I'll probably go neutral, because Gamaliel probably wouldn't make a terrible arb, but I'm not sure he'd make a great one.
 * Okay, you've made some very respectable contributions and you've told us that you think there's a problem with civility. Personally, I think people get too het up about such things, and the encyclopaedia is what happens while some people are busy reporting each other to noticeboards over the most minor of perceived insults. Sure, we should all try to get along with each other, and there's certainly no need for gratuitous insults, but sometimes rigorous debate and even dispute makes the encyclopaedia better... I'll probably go neutral, because Gamaliel probably wouldn't make a terrible arb, but I'm not sure he'd make a great one.


 * Oppose
 * Standing for election provides you with a soapbox from which to air your views. Venting your spleen once in a while can be a good thing, and using an ArbCom nomination statement to do it can also be a good thing, as it gives people food for thought, and it perhaps encourages other candidates to stand. But serious candidates, candidates who actually want to be elected, recommend solutions rather than just repeating the tired "Wikipedia is dying" line. I don't see anything in this nomination other than bitterness at disputes that didn't go his way and decisions he didn't agree with. A vote for GWH seems to be a vote for regression and re-hashing old disputes, rather than a vote for a progressive ArbCom which meets the needs of the community by taking the heat out of its most intractable disputes.
 * Standing for election provides you with a soapbox from which to air your views. Venting your spleen once in a while can be a good thing, and using an ArbCom nomination statement to do it can also be a good thing, as it gives people food for thought, and it perhaps encourages other candidates to stand. But serious candidates, candidates who actually want to be elected, recommend solutions rather than just repeating the tired "Wikipedia is dying" line. I don't see anything in this nomination other than bitterness at disputes that didn't go his way and decisions he didn't agree with. A vote for GWH seems to be a vote for regression and re-hashing old disputes, rather than a vote for a progressive ArbCom which meets the needs of the community by taking the heat out of its most intractable disputes.


 * Support
 * I have some reservations, but all things considered, I think GW is a sensible, level-headed candidate who knows the sort of workload she's letting herself in for. I wonder if she's seen enough of the many corners of Wikipedia, and I don't get any sense of great ambition or a desire to change anything. GW strikes me as almost a career Wikipedian, rising through the ranks without making much of an impact. Even so, she's uncontroversial. Even in a deeper candidate pool, I'd probably support GW, because a quiet, uncontentious editor with a fresh pair of eyes, who comes to the committee without baggage or drama certainly can't do any harm.
 * I have some reservations, but all things considered, I think GW is a sensible, level-headed candidate who knows the sort of workload she's letting herself in for. I wonder if she's seen enough of the many corners of Wikipedia, and I don't get any sense of great ambition or a desire to change anything. GW strikes me as almost a career Wikipedian, rising through the ranks without making much of an impact. Even so, she's uncontroversial. Even in a deeper candidate pool, I'd probably support GW, because a quiet, uncontentious editor with a fresh pair of eyes, who comes to the committee without baggage or drama certainly can't do any harm.


 * Support
 * I believe Guerillero has a genuine humility, and really is a reluctant candidate standing out of altruism. I'm not sure we really need more students on ArbCom (cf. Boing!); either ArbCom or their studies usually suffer, and few have been excellent arbitrators. But there's an exception to every rule, and Guerillero might just be it. While the ideas for reform of the subcommittees are not new, they are important reforms, and what better advocate than somebody who has served on one of the committees and understands its workings? Frankly, I like that we have at least one candidate who has become part of the establishment but has become disillusioned with it, and that would get at least a weak support from me in a bad year. This year's candidate pool is deeper than in previous years, but I'm still happy to support Guerillero; I see the passion and the ideals, but tempered by a healthy dose of pragmatism.
 * I believe Guerillero has a genuine humility, and really is a reluctant candidate standing out of altruism. I'm not sure we really need more students on ArbCom (cf. Boing!); either ArbCom or their studies usually suffer, and few have been excellent arbitrators. But there's an exception to every rule, and Guerillero might just be it. While the ideas for reform of the subcommittees are not new, they are important reforms, and what better advocate than somebody who has served on one of the committees and understands its workings? Frankly, I like that we have at least one candidate who has become part of the establishment but has become disillusioned with it, and that would get at least a weak support from me in a bad year. This year's candidate pool is deeper than in previous years, but I'm still happy to support Guerillero; I see the passion and the ideals, but tempered by a healthy dose of pragmatism.


 * Oppose
 * Is this a real candidacy? If you're trying to make the point that we should all take ourselves less seriously, I'd have some sympathy with that, but such a juvenile statement insults your own intelligence (which, from our brief interactions, I believe is considerably greater than your statement would suggest).
 * Is this a real candidacy? If you're trying to make the point that we should all take ourselves less seriously, I'd have some sympathy with that, but such a juvenile statement insults your own intelligence (which, from our brief interactions, I believe is considerably greater than your statement would suggest).


 * Neutral
 * A hard-working and dedicated content creator. Nice to see a candidate with those sorts of mainspace credentials in the running, but ArbCom has little to do with with writing the encyclopaedia itself (and yes, I know how daft that would sound if it weren't true!). If you really want to do it, I certainly won't oppose you, but if you've got any sense, you'd relish the quiet life rather than getting involved in the politics.
 * A hard-working and dedicated content creator. Nice to see a candidate with those sorts of mainspace credentials in the running, but ArbCom has little to do with with writing the encyclopaedia itself (and yes, I know how daft that would sound if it weren't true!). If you really want to do it, I certainly won't oppose you, but if you've got any sense, you'd relish the quiet life rather than getting involved in the politics.


 * Support
 * "Failed last year so became a clerk and now I'm standing again" doesn't fill me with confidence, it has to be said. Clerks are the invertebrates of Wikipedia—they do useful, even vital, work, but they're not known for thinking for themselves. Their ranks have also become infested in recent years with "career Wikipedians" who are just positioning themselves so as to move further up the ladder. Neither quality is what we need from arbitrators. I also have a lot of sympathy with Boing!'s view that an arb would benefit from a few years' "real life" experience. In an ideal world, with a deeper candidate pool, maybe I'd tell Steve to come back in a few years. But as things are, I think I'll support. Steve is keen, he's standing out of a genuine desire to help, he's clearly intelligent enough to learn on the job, and he comes without drama or baggage. He's also a nice bloke, which isn't the b-all and end-all, but it does help, and it means he probably has a thick enough skin to deal with the more toxic side of arbitration. Give him a few months on the committee, and he could be a good, even a great, arb.
 * "Failed last year so became a clerk and now I'm standing again" doesn't fill me with confidence, it has to be said. Clerks are the invertebrates of Wikipedia—they do useful, even vital, work, but they're not known for thinking for themselves. Their ranks have also become infested in recent years with "career Wikipedians" who are just positioning themselves so as to move further up the ladder. Neither quality is what we need from arbitrators. I also have a lot of sympathy with Boing!'s view that an arb would benefit from a few years' "real life" experience. In an ideal world, with a deeper candidate pool, maybe I'd tell Steve to come back in a few years. But as things are, I think I'll support. Steve is keen, he's standing out of a genuine desire to help, he's clearly intelligent enough to learn on the job, and he comes without drama or baggage. He's also a nice bloke, which isn't the b-all and end-all, but it does help, and it means he probably has a thick enough skin to deal with the more toxic side of arbitration. Give him a few months on the committee, and he could be a good, even a great, arb.


 * Oppose
 * I'll say what I said last year, more or less. Kevin's a great admin, but I don't think he has the temperament to be an arbitrator. Unless he's changed considerably in the last year, he shoots first and asks questions later, which is great when dealing with vandals and sockpuppets, but not when trying to get to the bottom of a bitter dispute between groups of otherwise good editors. I have a lot of time for Kevin, but I wouldn't want to see him on ArbCom. Sorry, Kevin.
 * I'll say what I said last year, more or less. Kevin's a great admin, but I don't think he has the temperament to be an arbitrator. Unless he's changed considerably in the last year, he shoots first and asks questions later, which is great when dealing with vandals and sockpuppets, but not when trying to get to the bottom of a bitter dispute between groups of otherwise good editors. I have a lot of time for Kevin, but I wouldn't want to see him on ArbCom. Sorry, Kevin.


 * Support
 * LF is deceptively quiet on-wiki, but don't let that fool you. He's a very useful person to have on the committee as it currently is (perhaps not the committee as I'd like it to be, but I have to work with what I'm given, and while ArbCom has all sorts of back-end functions, it makes sense to elect people with those sorts of skill sets). I gather he does a lot of very valuable work as a functionary, and he's a brilliant OTRS agent. He's also active on the mailing list (which will be largely unknown except to OTRS agents because the list is only really used for discussing complex and sensitive issues), where he often provides useful contributions. LF will be great at handling some of ArbCom's "other business", such as working with functionaries and dealing with ban appeals. I don't really have anything on which to base a judgement of how he would deal with toxic and intractable disputes, but he certainly has the people skills to deal with parties diplomatically. I wouldn't want to elect nine LFaraones, but I think one is just right.
 * LF is deceptively quiet on-wiki, but don't let that fool you. He's a very useful person to have on the committee as it currently is (perhaps not the committee as I'd like it to be, but I have to work with what I'm given, and while ArbCom has all sorts of back-end functions, it makes sense to elect people with those sorts of skill sets). I gather he does a lot of very valuable work as a functionary, and he's a brilliant OTRS agent. He's also active on the mailing list (which will be largely unknown except to OTRS agents because the list is only really used for discussing complex and sensitive issues), where he often provides useful contributions. LF will be great at handling some of ArbCom's "other business", such as working with functionaries and dealing with ban appeals. I don't really have anything on which to base a judgement of how he would deal with toxic and intractable disputes, but he certainly has the people skills to deal with parties diplomatically. I wouldn't want to elect nine LFaraones, but I think one is just right.


 * Support
 * Sensible and hard-working. Maybe not the most radical candidate, but he's not naive enough to think ArbCom is perfect. Has lots of experience doing useful and possibly relevant things, and you don't put in serious time as a CheckUser or SPI clerk unless you have a thick skin.
 * Sensible and hard-working. Maybe not the most radical candidate, but he's not naive enough to think ArbCom is perfect. Has lots of experience doing useful and possibly relevant things, and you don't put in serious time as a CheckUser or SPI clerk unless you have a thick skin.


 * Support
 * He's attracted some controversy recently, but sometimes you just can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs; sometimes it takes action to move a discussion on one way or the other. I think RP has the good judgement to know that such an approach won't work in all (or even most) situations, and he's certainly capable of tact and diplomacy when necessary. He's also an articulate and able advocate, who can argue his case, even when his stance is unpopular, but I don't get a sense of such arrogance from him that he would be incapable of changing his mind.
 * He's attracted some controversy recently, but sometimes you just can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs; sometimes it takes action to move a discussion on one way or the other. I think RP has the good judgement to know that such an approach won't work in all (or even most) situations, and he's certainly capable of tact and diplomacy when necessary. He's also an articulate and able advocate, who can argue his case, even when his stance is unpopular, but I don't get a sense of such arrogance from him that he would be incapable of changing his mind.


 * Oppose
 * I can only echo Boing!'s comment: "far more good people have been driven away by [insidious incivility] than by the occasional 'fuck'. I don't want to risk having the 'rude words police' on ArbCom, so I must oppose." I think Boing! hit the nail on the head—this isn't a primary school playground, and civility is not about giving somebody corner time for using "rude words"; there are problems with what Boing! calls "insidious incivility" in some areas, but I'm not convinced Rich grasps that, much less that he has a thick enough skin to see past "rude words" and tackle the real issue.
 * I can only echo Boing!'s comment: "far more good people have been driven away by [insidious incivility] than by the occasional 'fuck'. I don't want to risk having the 'rude words police' on ArbCom, so I must oppose." I think Boing! hit the nail on the head—this isn't a primary school playground, and civility is not about giving somebody corner time for using "rude words"; there are problems with what Boing! calls "insidious incivility" in some areas, but I'm not convinced Rich grasps that, much less that he has a thick enough skin to see past "rude words" and tackle the real issue.


 * Neutral Support
 * Isn't it about time you took a year off, Rodge? I'm lucky to have got to know Roger well over the last couple of years and I think he's a great arbitrator. He has an ability to see past the bullshit and analyse the real issue rather than worrying about the bluster of the various feuding parties. He also has the ability to speak plainly and articulate his thoughts (which is uncommon among arbitrators) without excess verbiage and without pussy-footing around to avoid offending one party's sensitivities. The incisiveness to be able to see the real issue and the willingness to deal with it is all to rare among arbitrators. That said, Roger seems to be becoming increasingly part of the furniture, and five years (never mind the seven he would complete if re-elected) is a bloody long time to sit on one body. I wonder if there comes a time when one has achieved all one can, and the better service is in making way for a fresher pair of eyes...
 * Isn't it about time you took a year off, Rodge? I'm lucky to have got to know Roger well over the last couple of years and I think he's a great arbitrator. He has an ability to see past the bullshit and analyse the real issue rather than worrying about the bluster of the various feuding parties. He also has the ability to speak plainly and articulate his thoughts (which is uncommon among arbitrators) without excess verbiage and without pussy-footing around to avoid offending one party's sensitivities. The incisiveness to be able to see the real issue and the willingness to deal with it is all to rare among arbitrators. That said, Roger seems to be becoming increasingly part of the furniture, and five years (never mind the seven he would complete if re-elected) is a bloody long time to sit on one body. I wonder if there comes a time when one has achieved all one can, and the better service is in making way for a fresher pair of eyes...


 * NB, in the light of feedback on the talk page, I have asked Roger Davies a question, so my opinion might change.
 * Having read Roger's answers, I think I'll be supporting him. I still think seven years is a long time to sit on ArbCom, and there's a risk that one loses touch with the community and with the purpose of the project by spending so long dealing with its politics, but Roger seems to have clear ideas for some of the changes he wants to bring about and for how he would accomplish that.


 * Oppose
 * We need arbs who are going to stick it out, not mid-term resignations. Secret is just too erratic for my liking, and going through an RfA only to ask for the bit to be removed, then asking for a pause, then demanding it be removed urgently, then changing his mind again shows a lack of maturity. Secret has many great qualities, and he's a valuable Wikipedian, but I just don't think he's suited to ArbCom. At least not at the minute.
 * We need arbs who are going to stick it out, not mid-term resignations. Secret is just too erratic for my liking, and going through an RfA only to ask for the bit to be removed, then asking for a pause, then demanding it be removed urgently, then changing his mind again shows a lack of maturity. Secret has many great qualities, and he's a valuable Wikipedian, but I just don't think he's suited to ArbCom. At least not at the minute.


 * Support
 * A sensible, level-headed admin. The sort of person who hears all the parties out before making a decision, and who is willing to listen and compromise where necessary. Seraphimblade is somebody I've only had a few interactions with, but those interactions left me with a high opinion of him. He has the sort of qualities that would make for a good arbitrator, but he's also polite
 * A sensible, level-headed admin. The sort of person who hears all the parties out before making a decision, and who is willing to listen and compromise where necessary. Seraphimblade is somebody I've only had a few interactions with, but those interactions left me with a high opinion of him. He has the sort of qualities that would make for a good arbitrator, but he's also polite


 * Oppose
 * Whether he really is nothing but trouble or whether trouble just follows him around, I'm not sure, but either way, electing him would cause far too much drama.
 * Whether he really is nothing but trouble or whether trouble just follows him around, I'm not sure, but either way, electing him would cause far too much drama.